Chapter XVIII: Section 7: And be it further enacted, That, after the appointment of (2)

1. The first class is already provided for. It appears that one hundred thousand freedmen are already engaged in the military service as soldiers or laborers. Others will continue to be engaged in this way. These are all naturally and logically under the charge of the War Department; nor do they need the superintendence of the proposed bureau. The Act of Congress equalizing their condition in the army of the United States is better for them than any bureau.

2. But there will remain the other larger class, consisting in the main of women and children and farm laborers, who must find employment on the abandoned lands. To this labor they are accustomed. These lands are their natural home. But this class must naturally and logically come under the charge of the department which has charge of the abandoned lands. Conceding that all in the military service fall under the superintendence of the War Department, it follows with equal reason that all who labor on the lands must fall under the superintendence of the Treasury Department, so long, at least, as this department has charge of the lands.

This conclusion seems so reasonable that your Committee were not able to resist it. But the testimony of persons who have given particular attention to the question is also explicit; so that experience is in harmony with reason. I have in my hands a letter from Colonel McKaye, an eminent citizen of New York, and also a member of the Commission to inquire and report on this subject, appointed by the Secretary of War. After visiting South Carolina and Louisiana, expressly to study the necessities of freedmen, and to ascertain what could be done to benefit them, he thus expresses himself:--

“_In the first place_, everybody who has had any _practical
experience_ of the working of the plantations or of the
superintendence of negro labor will tell you that _the control
of the abandoned plantations and the care of the colored people
must be in the same hands_.”

You will not fail to observe how positively this _expert_ speaks. According to him, all who have had “practical experience” insist that the care of the freedmen and of the plantations should be “in the same hands”; and so important does he regard this point that he places it first in consideration.

But Colonel McKaye is not alone. Here is a letter from Hon. Robert Dale Owen, Chairman of the Commission on Freedmen, appointed by the Secretary of War, which testifies as follows:--

“It will never do to have Treasury agents who lease the lands
to white men, and War Department agents who assign the same
lands to colored people. Nothing but confusion and conflict of
authority can result. It will not work at all. But even if it
would, why employ two sets of agents to do what one set can do
much better? And who is to inspect the leased plantations, and
see to it that neither employers nor employed are wronged? The
men who gave the leases? But they are Treasury agents, and have
nothing to do with freedmen. Or the Freedmen’s Commissioners?
But what authority can they have over men who do not hold their
leases from them? _The men who have the care of the laborer
ought to have the leasing of the land and the inspection of
the leases_; and they should be authorized to lease equally to
white and to colored people.”

Such a statement is an argument.

This conclusion has the support also of General Banks, in a letter addressed to one of the Freedmen’s Commission. Here are his words:--

“The assignment of the abandoned or forfeited plantations
to one department of the Government, and the protection and
support of the emancipated people to another, _is a fundamental
error productive of incalculable evils, and cannot be too soon
or too thoroughly corrected_.”

The able and elaborate report from the Freedmen’s Commission, just published, considers this question carefully. Nothing could be more explicit than the following testimony.

“But, in the judgment of the Commission, the most serious error
in connection with the present arrangements for the care and
protection of these people _arises out of the assignment to
a different agency of the care and disposal of the abandoned
plantations_. To enter into the detail of all the evils and
abuses that have arisen out of this error, and which are
unavoidable so long as it continues to exist, would occupy too
great a space in this report. Suffice it to say, that it is
the source of the greatest confusion and a perpetual collision
between the different local authorities, in which not only the
emancipated population, but the Government itself, suffers the
most serious injuries and losses.

…

“And this is the purport of all the testimony which the
Commission has been able to obtain, not in the department of
the Gulf only, but everywhere, in relation to this matter.

“The unhesitating judgment of every person, official or other,
not interested in the opportunities it affords for peculation,
with whom we have consulted, coincides with that of General
Banks. All, without exception, declare that no system can
avail to effect the great objects contemplated that does not
assign to one and the same authority the care and disposal of
the abandoned plantations and the care and protection of the
emancipated laborers who are to cultivate them.

“_And, after the most thorough investigations, I am authorized
in saying that this is the deliberate judgment of the
Commission._”[351]

It was on this ground of reason, and yielding to the influence of such authoritative opinions, that the Committee were led to believe that there was no alternative on this practical question.

In the course of their inquiries the Committee sought the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury. With the heavy burdens of his department resting on his shoulders, he does not desire any additional labor; but he does not conceal his conviction that the care of the freedmen must for the present be associated with the care of the lands. He would be glad to be relieved of all the responsibilities connected with the subject, but he hopes that it will not be divided between two different departments. In that event it is feared that there will be little good from either.

I have dwelt with some minuteness on this question, because it seems to be the practical point on which there may be difference of opinion. Already gentlemen have taken sides, and newspapers also. I regret this difference, but I trust that a calm and dispassionate consideration of the subject will render it innocuous. The first thought of all should be for the freedmen.

* * * * *

There is another point, which ought not to be passed over in silence, arising from the just desire to protect the freedmen from any system of serfdom or enforced apprenticeship. It is well known that among former slave-masters there are many who continue to count upon appropriating the labor of their slaves, if not under the name of Slavery, at least under some other system by which freedmen shall be effectually held to service. This very phrase “held to service,” standing alone, is the pleonastic definition of Slavery itself. One of these slave-masters, in a public speech, said: “There is really no difference, in my opinion, whether we hold them as absolute slaves or obtain their labor by some other method. Of course we prefer the old method; but that question is not now before us.”[352] Such barefaced avowals were not needed to put humane men on their guard against the conspiracy to continue Slavery under another name.

The bill before the Senate provides against any such possibility by requiring that the assistant commissioners and local superintendents shall not only aid the freedmen in the adjustment of their wages, but shall take care that they do not suffer from ill-treatment or any failure of contract on the part of others,--and also that the contracts for service shall be limited to a year. The latter provision is so important that I give it precisely.

“_Provided_, That no freedmen shall be held to service on any
estate above mentioned otherwise than according to voluntary
contract, reduced to writing, and certified by the assistant
commissioner or local superintendent; nor shall any such
contract be for a longer period than twelve months.”

Here is a safeguard against serfdom or enforced apprenticeship which seemed to the Committee of especial value. In this respect the House bill was thought to be fatally defective, inasmuch as it interposed no positive safeguards.

I do not know how extensive the desire may be to set Slavery again on its feet under another name. But when we take into consideration the selfish tendencies of business, the disposition of the strong to appropriate the labor of the weak, and the reluctance of slave-masters to renounce habitual power, I have felt that Congress would fail in its duty, if it did not by special provision guard against any such outrage. There must be no Slavery under an _alias_. This infinite wrong must not be allowed to skulk in serfdom or compulsory labor. “Once free, always free,”--such is the maxim of justice and jurisprudence. But any system by which the freedmen may be annexed to the soil, like the old _adscripti glebæ_, will be in direct conflict with their newly acquired rights. They can be properly bound only by contract; and considering how easily they may be induced to enter into engagements ignorantly or heedlessly, and thus become the legal victims of designing men, it is evident that no precautions in their behalf can be too great.

It is well known that in some of the British West Indies an attempt was made, at the period of emancipation, to establish a system of apprenticeship, which should be an intermediate condition between Slavery and Freedom. But the experiment failed. In some of the islands it was abandoned by the planters themselves, who frankly accepted emancipation outright; and in all it finally fell before the irresistible eloquence of Brougham. Here is a passage from one of his speeches.

“They who always dreaded Emancipation, who were alarmed at
the prospect of negro indolence, who stood aghast at the
vision of negro rebellion, should the chains cease to rattle
or the lash to resound through the air, gathering no wisdom
from the past, still persist in affrighting themselves and
scaring you with imaginary apprehensions from the transition
to entire freedom out of the present intermediate state. But
that intermediate state is the very source of all their real
danger; and I disguise not its magnitude from myself. You have
gone too far, if you stop here and go no farther; _you are in
imminent hazard, if, having loosened the fetters, you do not
strike them off_,--if, leaving them ineffectual to restrain,
you let them remain to gall and to irritate and to goad. Beware
of that state, yet more unnatural than slavery itself, _liberty
bestowed by halves_.

…

“I have demonstrated to you that everything is ordered, every
previous step taken, all safe, by experience shown to be safe,
for the long desired consummation. The time has come, the
trial has been made, the hour is striking; you have no longer
a pretext for hesitation or faltering or delay. The slave
has shown, by four years’ blameless behavior and devotion to
the pursuits of peaceful industry, that he is as fit for his
freedom as any English peasant, ay, or any lord whom I now
address. I demand his rights,--_I demand his liberty without
stint_,--in the name of justice and of law, in the name of
reason, in the name of God, who has given you no right to work
injustice.”[353]

But surely there is no need of eloquence or persuasion to induce you to set your faces like flint against any such half-way system. Freedom already declared must be secured completely, so that it may not fail through any pretension or fraud of wicked men. The least that can be done is what is proposed by your Committee.

Much more might be said on the whole subject; but I forbear. I have opened to consideration the two principal questions. If the Senate agree with the Committee, first, on the importance of keeping the superintendence of the freedmen and of lands in the same hands, so as to avoid local conflict and discord, and, secondly, in the importance of providing surely against any system of serfdom or adscription to the soil, the bill of the Committee must be adopted.

For the sake of plainness, I ask attention to the general character of the bill in its main features.

1. It provides exclusively for freedmen, meaning thereby “such persons as have once been slaves,” without undertaking to embrace persons generally of African descent.

2. It seeks to secure for such freedmen the opportunity of labor on those lands which are natural and congenial to them, and on this account it places superintendence of the freedmen in a department having superintendence of the lands.

3. It provides positively against any system of enforced labor or apprenticeship, by requiring contracts between the freedmen and their employers to be carefully attested before local officers.

4. It establishes careful machinery for the purposes of the bill, both as regards freedmen and as regards lands.

But the bill is seen not only in what it does, but also in what it avoids doing.

It does not undertake too much. It does not assume to provide ways and means for the support of the freedmen; but it does look to securing them the opportunities of labor according to well-guarded contracts and under the friendly advice of agents of the Government, who will take care that they are protected from abuse of all kinds.

It is the declared duty of the agents “to protect these persons in the enjoyment of their rights, to promote their welfare, and to secure to them and their posterity the blessings of liberty.” Under these comprehensive words all that is proper and constitutional is authorized for their welfare and security, while labor is made to go hand in hand. Thus far in the sad history of this people labor has been compelled by Slavery. But the case at last will be reversed. It is Liberty that will conduct the freedman to the fields, protect him in his toil, and secure to him all its fruits.

In closing what I have to say on this subject, allow me to read the official testimony of the Commission on Freedmen, appointed by the Secretary of War, in their recent report.

“For a time we need a Freedmen’s Bureau,--but not because these
people are negroes, only because they are men who have been
for generations despoiled of their rights. The Commission has
heretofore--to wit, in the Supplemental Report made to you in
December last--recommended the establishment of such a bureau;
and they believe that all that is essential to its proper
organization is contained, substantially, in a bill to that
effect, reported, on April 12, from the Senate Committee on
Slavery and Freedmen.”[354]

This is the bill before us.

It is for the Senate to determine, under the circumstances, what it will do. My earnest hope is that it will do something. The opportunity must not be lost of helping so many persons now helpless, and of aiding the cause of reconciliation, without which peace cannot be assured. In this spirit I leave the whole subject to the judgment of the Senate. If anything better than the work of the Committee can be found, I hope it will be adopted; meanwhile I ask you to accept what is now offered.

After various amendments moved by Mr. Sumner, the bill was
violently opposed by Mr. Richardson, of Illinois. In the course
of his speech the following colloquy occurred.

MR. RICHARDSON. The Senator from Massachusetts will be able
to carry his proposition next winter, if the people can be
deceived to reëlect Lincoln.

MR. SUMNER. I hope this summer.

MR. RICHARDSON. You have no show in the world this summer.
If you could carry that proposition now, you could not
carry one of the Northwestern States this fall.

June 14th, the consideration of the bill was renewed, when Mr.
Hendricks, of Indiana, spoke against it. He moved to strike out
“Treasury Department,” and insert “Department of the Interior.”
On this motion Mr. Sumner said:--

The point to which the Senator directs attention was considered very carefully by the Committee. Were this a moment of peace, I believe the Committee would have been unanimous in the idea of the Senator. Indeed, it seems to me, the reasons for it in time of peace are unanswerable. It is in the Interior Department that we place the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Pensions, the Bureau of Patents, the Bureau of Public Lands; and a Bureau of Freedmen would be more or less germane to all these interests. It would naturally be lodged in the same department with them. Naturally it belongs to the Interior; there can be no question about it. The Senator, therefore, is perfectly right, when he makes the suggestion. But the Senator should take into consideration that at this moment we are acting provisionally, and not permanently,--under suggestions growing out of the present state of the country, and not as if we were in a condition of permanent peace.

In placing the bureau where the Committee have placed it, they followed what seemed the necessities of the case. Congress, by previous legislation, has practically placed the bureau in the Treasury Department,--or rather it has rendered it necessary that it should be placed there, unless we are willing by legislation to create a conflict between two different departments. Congress has already placed in the Treasury Department the control of the business relations between the Rebel States and the Loyal States, and also the control of the abandoned lands and plantations in the Rebel States. Now, as I tried to exhibit the other day, when I opened this question, the main interest for the moment is how to bring the freedmen in connection with the lands. If you go beyond that, if you undertake to provide means for their support, you assume what I believe the country does not expect you to assume, and what I believe those who have the welfare of that people most at heart do not venture to counsel. We desire to secure for them opportunity,--opportunity to work: that is the main point, and that can be secured only by bringing them in connection with the lands. The care and guardianship of the lands where it is proposed to place the freedmen have already, by previous legislation, I repeat, been lodged with the Treasury Department. Therefore, naturally and logically, it seems to follow, unless you are willing to create a conflict between two different departments, or between the agents of two different departments, that you should place the care of the freedmen in the same department.

Sir, I am not alone in this view. The other day I presented it, and gave opinions on the subject, to which I now call attention: one is a private letter from Hon. Robert Dale Owen, and the other is part of the Report of the Freedmen’s Commission, appointed by the Secretary of War to consider, among other questions, that now before the Senate.[355]

The amendment of Mr. Hendricks was rejected. Mr. Willey, of
West Virginia, then spoke against the bill. He said: “In my
opinion, after as close and careful an examination of this bill
as I have been able to give to it, its proper title would be ‘A
bill to reënslave freedmen.’ … Sir, in the name of Liberty and
Emancipation I protest against the passage of any such bill by
the American Senate.”

June 15th, the debate was continued, when the bill was opposed
by Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. Hicks, of Maryland, and Mr.
Grimes, of Iowa. Mr. Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, spoke in favor
of it. Mr. Carlile, of Virginia, moved to postpone its further
consideration to the first Monday of December next, which was
lost,--Yeas 13, Nays 23. Mr. Grimes was particularly severe in
his criticism, which drew from Mr. Sumner the following reply.

I am sorry that I am obliged to say another word in this debate. I had hoped to be excused. But the remarks of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES] leave me no alternative.

I am not astonished at the opposition this bill has encountered from Senators over the way. It is their vocation to oppose every such measure, and to give it, if possible, a bad name. They believe in Slavery more or less, and will not do anything to remove it or to mitigate its terrible curse. There is the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. WILLEY], who gives us smooth words for Freedom, with boasts of the slaves he has emancipated, and then straightway, by voice and vote, sustains slave-hunting, and, if possible, worse still, startles the Senate by a menace that slaves set free by Act of Congress will be reënslaved by States restored to the Union. That this Senator should attack a bill for a Bureau of Freedmen is perfectly natural; nor am I astonished that he should misrepresent its character. But I cannot conceal my surprise at the course of the Senator from Iowa, who I know has no love for Slavery, and no congenital, persistent, and rooted prejudices against the colored race. If the Senator from West Virginia spoke naturally, allow me to say that my friend from Iowa spoke unnaturally.

Sir, the Senator has not done justice to the bill he undertook to criticize. It was evident that he spoke hastily, without having even read it. At least, this is not an improper assumption, when we consider some of his criticisms. It will be remembered how promptly I corrected him, while he was picturing the Assistant Commissioners as so utterly without restraint that they were not even obliged to make reports. I rose and read the clause in the bill expressly requiring not only “quarterly reports,” but “other special reports from time to time.” The Senator, surprised by this provision, replied, that it was at the close of the bill, and was evidently an afterthought. This, again, was a mistake. Had he read the bill carefully, he would have found, that, whatever its merits in other respects, everything is introduced in its proper place, and this provision is no exception. There is no afterthought in the bill. The Senator then complained that the Assistant Commissioner was not obliged to give a bond. Here, again, he was mistaken. By an amendment moved by myself this was required. All this was part of the attempt to show that the bureau had not been planned with sufficient care. Suffice it to say that there is no bureau of the Government constituted with more care, or surrounded with more safeguards against abuse. Much, in the last resort, must be confided to the honesty of public servants; but in the present case they are all placed under the observation of their superiors. Superintendents will be observed by the Assistant Commissioner, who will be observed by the Commissioner, and all will be under the observation of the Secretary of the Treasury, who himself is under the observation of the President; and I need not add that the whole will be subject to the oversight of a humane and enlightened people, awakening daily to a sense of obligation which cannot be postponed.

I am not wrong, then, when I say that the Senator did injustice to the bill in his criticism on its structure and the machinery it establishes. But this was the smallest part of his injustice. He went further, and, following the Senator from West Virginia, asserted that it gave the Commissioner unlimited power and control, so as to hand the unhappy freedman over to Slavery under another name. I looked at the Senator to see if he were really serious, as he made this strange accusation against a measure conceived in a sentiment of humanity and equity, and, by positive provisions, guarding every freedman against the very outrage which the Senator professes to fear. He seemed to be serious, as he repeated the accusation. But as he had erred with regard to the restraints upon the Assistant Commissioners, so he erred in the graver impeachment which he launched here.

The Senator began by saying that the bill, according to its definition of freedmen, was applicable to all “once slaves,” and that even Robert Small, the patriot slave who navigated the “Planter” out of Charleston and gave it to us, would come under its provisions. Very well. Suppose he does. Can he suffer from it? Does he lose anything by it? Can anybody under this bill exercise any power or control over Robert Small? The Senator forgets that the bill assumes that all are free, and in every respect entitled to all the privileges of freemen,--that they are invested with every right the Senator himself possesses, and, if these rights are violated, they may look for a remedy to any court of justice precisely as he could. None of these rights are infringed. On the contrary, the officers under the bill are charged to see that the freedmen are secure in their rights; so that Robert Small himself, if the occasion required, might find aid and protection under it. The bill gives no power to take away or limit existing rights; but it provides additional means for their safeguard, that emancipation may be perfect, so far as possible.

I do not like to take time, especially when I consider that in opening this matter to the Senate I explained the character of the bill and its necessity. I do not pretend that it is perfect; but I beg to assure the Senate that it is the result of the careful deliberations of the Committee. If Senators are disposed to criticize it, or to offer amendments with a view to its improvement, let them do so. But I trust that they will not allow themselves to be carried into any general hostility founded on misconception of its real character. I might remind them again of the large numbers of freedmen--free, thank God, by legislative and executive acts of the United States, but not yet introduced into the new condition appointed for them--unemployed, suffering, starving, and, with a voice of agony, calling for relief. I might remind them of the inability of private charity, or any effort organized by private individuals, to meet all the exigencies of this unprecedented case, although the generosity of our people is overflowing. I might dwell on the obligation of the nation, reaching everywhere with its hundred arms, to do what inferior charity must fail to do; and I might especially show that it is not enough to strike down the master, but that you must go further, and lift up the slave. But I forbear, contenting myself with reminding you, that, if you oppose legislation to help the freedmen in their rough passage from Slavery to Freedom, you hand over this unhappy people--unhappy for long generations, and not yet conducted into the full enjoyment of their rights--to a condition which I dread to contemplate. They look about and find no home. They seek occupation, but it is not within their reach. They ask for protection, sometimes against former taskmasters, and sometimes against other selfish men. If these are not supplied in some way by the Government, I know not where to look for them. Surely, Sir, you will not hesitate to provide, so far as you can, carefully and wisely, the proper means to secure employment for them during the transition from one condition to another, and, above all, to throw over them everywhere the ægis of Constitution and Law. And such, permit me to say, is the single supreme object of the present bill, which has been so cordially misrepresented by the Senator from West Virginia, and so strangely misrepresented by my friend from Iowa.

I have said that the object was care and protection for persons actually free, and so regarded, who, from the peculiarity of their condition, might not be able in all respects to secure these without assistance. To this end a central agency is proposed at Washington, with subordinate agencies where the freedmen are to be found, devoted to this work of watching over emancipation, so that it may be surrounded with a congenial atmosphere. Is not the object worthy of support? Who will question it?

The language of the bill describing the functions of the Commissioner is plain and explicit; and yet out of this language, so guarded and so utterly inoffensive, the Senator from Iowa has conjured a phantom to frighten the Senate from its propriety. Why, Sir, if there were anything which by possibility could justify the fears of the Senator, if there were anything which even the most lively imagination could exaggerate into a lack of care and protection, then I should be the first to denounce it, and to ask forgiveness for an unconscious aberration. But there is absolutely nothing; and if you listen to the bill, you will agree with me.

I begin with the very words which to the Senator from Iowa were so alarming:--

“The Commissioner, under the direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury, shall have the general superintendence of all
freedmen throughout the several departments.”

Here are duties imposed upon the Commissioner; but there is no power or control over the freedmen. Calling a man superintendent gives him no power except in conformity with law; but all the laws, general and special, are for Freedom. And yet the Senator has repeated, again and again, that this was a grant of unlimited power and control over the freedmen. To his mind here was an overflowing fountain of tyranny and wrong.

MR. GRIMES. Will the Senator tell the Senate what is meant by
it?

MR. SUMNER. With great pleasure; and if I can have the candid attention of my friend, I believe that he and I cannot differ, for I will not doubt that we have the same object at heart. Obviously the language indicates in a general way the character of the duties to be performed. They are duties of superintendence, but we are to look elsewhere for the extent of the duties; and the words which follow in the same section show something of their nature. Thus:--

“And it shall be his duty especially _to watch over_ the
execution of all laws, proclamations, and military orders of
emancipation, or in any way concerning freedmen.”

There, Sir, is the first glimpse of this tyrant. Mark, Sir, there is not one word of power or control over the freedmen, but duties solemnly imposed, all in behalf of Freedom. What next?

“And generally, by careful regulations in the spirit of the
Constitution, _to protect these persons in the enjoyment of
their rights_, to promote their welfare, and to secure to them
and their posterity the blessings of liberty.”

Here, again, are duties of the Commissioner; but there is not one word conferring power or control over the freedmen. The main object is protection in the enjoyment of their rights,--inborn, but new-found. This is to be crowned by such watchfulness as will promote their welfare and secure to them and their posterity the blessings of liberty; and all this is to be according to “careful regulations.” To find tyranny in this provision the Senator must be as critical as the German theologian who found heresy in the Lord’s Prayer. I do not go to the dictionary for the meaning of superintendent. This is needless. Obviously, the superintendent must superintend according to law; and since this is now for Freedom, whatever he does must be for Freedom likewise. He can do nothing without this inspiration. The function of superintendence is not applicable exclusively to this case. It is of common occurrence. There is a superintendent of emigrants; but nobody supposes that he can do anything with regard to emigrants except in conformity with law. The mayor of Washington is, in a certain sense, a superintendent of the Senator and myself, as we walk the streets or lie down at night in our houses, bound to see that we are protected from outrage and robbery. And the Vice-President, or the President of the Senate, is a superintendent of this Chamber, bound to see that the rules of Parliamentary Law are observed. But the Senator would not think of attributing to either of these functionaries that “unlimited control and power” which he dreaded in the superintendent of freedmen,--bound to see that freedmen are protected in their rights. And yet it exists in one case just as much as in the other.

I think, Sir, that after this explanation there can be no difficulty in answering the inquiry of the Senator. By “superintendence of all freedmen” is meant that watchfulness of their rights and interests consistent with laws, general and special, for their protection, welfare, and liberty, so that they may be helped to employment and be guarded against outrage. The object is good. What other word would the Senator employ to designate it? How would he describe the humane function of the Commissioner? He is versed in language. Will he supply any term more apt? I invite him to do it, and shall gladly accept it. Since we seem to concur in the object, let there be no difference on account of words. All I desire is something that shall supply help and protection. For this I cheerfully sacrifice the rest. And permit me to say, I have misread this bill, if there is a single word in it, from beginning to end, which can give the most remote apology for any other idea.

I have thus far only glanced at a single section. Look further. I pass for the moment the next section, and go to the sixth, which describes some of the duties of the “Assistant Commissioners and local superintendents.” It begins by declaring that they--

“Shall act as _advisory guardians to aid_ the freedmen in
the adjustment of their wages, or, where they have rented
plantations or small holdings, in the application of their
labor.”

Observe, if you please, the friendly service to be performed. Not in this way do tyrants or slave-masters wield a wicked power. Here is advice, guardianship, and the adjustment of wages,--all inconsistent with Slavery in any of its pretensions. What next?

“That they shall take care that the freedmen do not suffer
from ill-treatment or any failure of contract on the part of
others, and that on their part they perform their duty under
any contract entered into by them.”

Mark, again, the friendly service. Here is another duty cast upon these officers.

MR. GRIMES. How is that to be enforced? Suppose they will not
work,--will not fulfil their contracts?

MR. SUMNER. The duty of these officers is “advisory.” They are not invested with power to enforce any provisions, unless by court of law or some other tribunal. The freedmen are entitled to all the rights of freemen, just as much as the Senator. Curiously, the Senator does not seem to have purged his mind of the idea that these men, in some way or other, have not yet ceased to be slaves,--

MR. GRIMES. No.

--an assumption which, however natural in the Senator from West Virginia, is not natural in my friend from Iowa. Let him recognize them as free, like himself, and he will see that there is no remedy open to him which is not open to them, and that any outrage upon them is, in point of law, the same as if inflicted upon himself.

MR. HARLAN. I desire to ask the Senator if there are courts of
law in existence in these Rebel States before whom the parties
may appear.

MR. SUMNER. I am afraid that courts of justice in those States are not yet in perfect operation. But such as they are, they will be open to every freedman. On this point there can be no question.

The next words show what shall be done by these officers to promote the administration of justice:--

“They shall further do what they can as _arbitrators_ to
reconcile and settle any differences in which freedmen may be
involved, whether among themselves or between themselves and
other persons.”

Here is the duty of arbitrator and peacemaker, but no power or control. And this duty is applicable to differences of all kinds, where the freedmen are parties. Nothing can be more humane or less tyrannical. This is not all.

“In case such differences are carried before any tribunal,
civil or military, they shall appear as next friends of the
freedmen, so far as to see that the case is fairly stated and
heard. And in all such proceedings there shall be no disability
or exclusion on account of color.”

If not “arbitrators,” then the officers are to be “next friends,” to aid the freedmen in any litigation into which they may be drawn. Very little tyranny here. And this service is to be rendered in any tribunal, “civil or military”; so that, where the civil courts are closed, the freedmen may obtain justice in any military tribunal. But whether in a civil or military tribunal, there is to be no disability or exclusion on account of color. When we consider how this disability and exclusion have been the badge of Slavery and its pretensions, we may find in their positive prohibition a new token of the spirit in which this bill is conceived. Very little tyranny here.

MR. GRIMES. But, Mr. President, the case that was put by me
was not where there was a controversy between the colored man
and some third party, but where the Commissioner attempted to
enforce the obligation of duty upon the colored man.… Now I
want to know of the Senator if a Commissioner who undertakes to
carry out the provisions of this bill may not, under the third
section, avail himself of the military authority that may be
in the department to enforce obedience,--and if he thinks it
would be doing justice to the colored men in the department
to leave them to the military control of the Commissioner, of
whom we know nothing, and about whom we do not know whether he
sympathises with the colored man or not. Is it right to leave
these colored men to the military control of this Commissioner
in order to enforce the obligation to labor?

MR. SUMNER. The Senator calls attention to another section, where it is provided that “the military commander within any department shall, on the application of the Assistant Commissioner thereof, supply all needful military support in the discharge of the duties of such Assistant Commissioner”; and he inquires if this does not authorize the Assistant Commissioner to use military power in making freedmen work. Let me say at once that the criticism of the Senator is absolutely novel. If the clause to which he refers could be employed to any such purpose, I beg to assure him it was not anticipated by the Committee. It was intended for a very different purpose, and in the interest of the freedman. Here, again, I remind the Senator that nothing can be done by any officer, military or civil, toward a freedman, which cannot be done toward any other citizen. If this military power can be used against one, it can be equally used against the other. The occasion for this power seemed obvious. It was supposed that in the Rebel States there might be exposed districts where the plantations would be subject to incursion or ravage from the enemy, by which labor would be obstructed or disturbed, unless military protection were at hand. To remedy evils of that character this provision was introduced. Such is the object sought to be accomplished. It is protection, in the spirit of the whole bill, and nothing else. If by any possibility there can be the chance of an abuse of this power, beyond what is incident to every trust, I shall be glad to take advantage of the criticism of the Senator, and amend the bill so that the evil he snuffs afar shall not be permitted to arrive.

The Senator cannot bear the thought of freedmen exposed to the tyranny of military power. But does he not forget that at this moment they are subject to this tyranny? It is to remove them from all this arbitrary control and uncertain protection that we establish a bureau, which shall be an agency of the civil power, charged to surround the freedmen with every safeguard the Constitution and laws can supply. Show me any provision in one or the other for the protection of human rights, and I claim it at once for the freedman against any oppressor, whatever his office or name.

Let the Senator bear these things in mind, and give us the advantage of his counsels. I shall welcome from him any suggestion, any proposition, any criticism, calculated to promote the object of the bill. The more he makes, the better. Let him be no niggard. But I trust he will pardon me, if I complain of inconsiderate assault, which, as it seems to me, can have no other effect than to injure the cause.

I have not done with the criticism of the Senator. It was on the fifth section, concerning the labor on abandoned plantations, that he bent his chief force. In the provisions of that section he found a new system of Slavery: sometimes it was Slavery outright, and sometimes it was Peon Slavery. Senators who did me the honor of listening to my remarks at the beginning of this debate will remember how I dwelt upon the importance of guarding against any revival of Slavery under any other name, whether of apprenticeship or adscription to the soil; and they may remember, perhaps, how I explained the impossibility of any such occurrence under the present bill, and showed that the freedman was guarded at all points. And yet, in the face of this exposition, and of the positive text,--better than any exposition,--the cry is sounded, that the liberty of the freedman is in danger. The Senator read this section at length, and then sounded again particular clauses and phrases, striving to interpret them for Slavery. I will not read it at length; nor will I dwell on the first part of the section. Suffice it to say, that, so far as it describes the lands to be taken for occupation, it follows substantially the text of the order from the War Department, by which “all houses, tenements, lands, and plantations, except such as may be required for military purposes, which have been or may be deserted and abandoned by insurgents within the lines of the military occupation,” are placed under the supervision and control of the supervising special agents of the Treasury Department. Under this order the Secretary of the Treasury has been acting for several months,--doing with these lands precisely what the Senator so vehemently condemns. The present bill, so far as concerns the power of the Commissioner over the lands, does little more than reduce the order of the War Department to the text of a statute, thus imparting to it a certain legality which it does not now possess.

Passing from the lands to be occupied under the bill, the Senator next pictures the terrible fate of the freedmen laboring on these lands in pursuance of careful contracts. There seems no limit to the Senator’s anxiety lest they should be bound in Slavery. I welcome his generous solicitude. But I pray that he will not allow it to mislead his judgment or prevent him from seeing the case in its true character. Surely he must be unduly excited, or he could not find danger in these words:--

“In case no proper lessees can be found, then to cause the same
to be cultivated or occupied by the freedmen, on such terms, in
either case, and under such regulations, as the Commissioner
may determine.”

“What a frightful power!” exclaimed the Senator. But why? Here is no power or control over the freedmen, but simply over the lands, which the officers cause to be cultivated or occupied. These officers are representatives of the National Government, to which the lands belong for the time being, and, in determining the terms and regulations under which they are to be cultivated or occupied, they do no more than is done by the Senator with regard to the lands he is so happy in owning. The Senator fixes the terms and regulations under which his lands are leased or cultivated: does he not? And he would be surprised, if any person called in question his rights in this regard; especially would he be surprised, if any person undertook to infer that the freedom of laborers upon his lands could be compromised by any terms or regulations he might choose to make. But there is no power he may exercise over his own lands that may not now be exercised by the Government. In each case the laborer must be treated as a freeman. The Senator seems to imagine that there is power or control over the freedmen conferred by these words. Here is his mistake. The power and control are over the lands, not over the freedmen. There is not a word in the clause that can be tortured into any such idea. I challenge the Senator to point it out.

Thus far I have considered this clause, which according to the Senator is so terribly pregnant, without alluding to the express limitation following in the same section. Even without this limitation it is clear and blameless. But the Committee, in order to make assurance doubly sure, and to set up an absolute impediment against any abuse, have added the following proviso:--

“_Provided_, That no freedmen shall be held to service on any
estate above mentioned otherwise than according to voluntary
contract, reduced to writing, and certified by the Assistant
Commissioner or local superintendent; nor shall any such
contract be for a longer period than twelve months.”

And yet, in the face of this proviso, the Senator sees danger. Nobody can be found on the lands except in pursuance of voluntary contract, which must be reduced to writing and certified by an officer of the Government. Nor is this all. The contract is not to be for a term beyond twelve months; so that, by no excuse, and by no exercise of power, can the freedman be put even under a shadow of control beyond this brief term. He is in all respects a freeman, laboring on lands according to careful contract for a limited period. And yet the Senator calls this beneficent arrangement Slavery, and then, changing the name, he calls it Peonage. Sir, the Senator has an imperfect conception of that peonage which is indefinite service, or of that slavery which is service for endless generations, if he undertakes to liken employment in pursuance of contract most carefully guarded for a term of a few months to either of these wretched conditions.

But all this is only part of the mistake in which the Senator has proceeded from beginning to end. I am at a loss to account for it. I do not understand it. That I regret it most sincerely I need not say. I counted upon his charitable regard for this bill. I felt sure of his sympathy with its general objects. I do not renounce the hope of this sympathy now. But I cannot forbear saying, that, to my mind, the Senator throws himself in the way of a humane undertaking, and practically abandons the claims of the oppressed race to which he and I both owe service. Long have they suffered, much have they been abused, wearily have they journeyed through life; and now, at last, when Slavery is overturned, and we seek to provide a passage from its torments to a better condition, where labor shall be quickened and protected by Liberty, and where all rights shall be respected, it is hard to find our efforts buffeted by a cross-wind from such an unexpected quarter.

Mr. Grimes and Mr. Willey followed. Between the latter and Mr.
Sumner there was an earnest passage.

June 27th, the consideration of the bill was again resumed,
when other amendments moved by Mr. Sumner were adopted, among
which was the following:--

“And every such freedman shall be treated in every respect
as a freeman, with all proper remedies in courts of
justice; and no power or control shall be exercised with
regard to him, except in conformity with law.”

Several Senators spoke.

* * * * *

June 28th, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved to strike out
“Treasury” and insert “War.” Mr. Sumner again explained the
preference of the Committee at length, when Mr. Wilson withdrew
his motion; but it was afterwards renewed by Mr. Reverdy
Johnson, of Maryland, and rejected,--Yeas 15, Nays 20. Other
motions ensued, with speeches. The substitute of the Committee
having been adopted, the bill was then passed,--Yeas 21, Nays
9,--with the title, “An Act to establish a Bureau of Freedmen.”

July 2d, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Eliot, from the
Select Committee on Emancipation, moved that the House should
not concur with the substitute of the Senate, when, on motion
of Mr. Griswold, the whole subject was postponed to December
20th.

* * * * *

December 20, 1864, in the House of Representatives, the bill
being under consideration, according to the postponement from
the last session, Mr. Eliot, of Massachusetts, Mr. Kelley,
of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Noble, of Ohio, were appointed a
Committee of Conference. The Senate agreed to the Conference,
and Mr. Sumner, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, and Mr. Buckalew,
of Pennsylvania, were appointed on the part of the Senate. A
new bill was reported. Instead of attaching the bureau to the
War Department or to the Treasury Department, an independent
department was created, called a Department of Freedmen and
Abandoned Lands; but in other respects it was substantially the
Senate bill.

February 9, 1865, after debate, the report of the Committee was
adopted by the House,--Yeas 64, Nays 62.

February 10th, Mr. Sumner, on the part of the Committee,
reported the new bill to the Senate, and on the 13th, in answer
to inquiry, explained it as follows.

Mr. PRESIDENT,--I trust that there will be no opposition to this most important, and, as I solemnly believe, most beneficent measure. But I shall be happy to make any explanation with regard to it.

Senators have not forgotten the bill to create a Bureau of Freedmen, which, after careful debate for several days, was passed by the Senate at the close of the last session as a substitute for a House bill. For some time the difference between the two Houses has been under the consideration of a Conference Committee, whose report is now before you. This report embodies substantially the Senate bill, including various propositions moved by different Senators,--among others, that relating to the forfeiture of estates, moved by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. TRUMBULL],--that relating to the care of freedmen unemployed on the lands, moved by the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. WILLEY],--and that relating to trials by courts-martial, moved by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE]. All of the Senate bill, in substance, and generally in language, is preserved, with one single exception. By the Senate bill a bureau was created in the Treasury. The Committee of the two Houses unite in recommending a separate department, holding directly under the President, and therefore free from the control of either the Treasury or the War.

In point of fact, the only substantial difference between the two Houses was on the place where the bureau should be. Each was for a bureau; but one was for it in the Treasury, and the other was for it in the Department of War; and there were strong arguments in favor of each. There were also strong feelings against each. Sometimes it was compendiously said that the freedmen could not be trusted to “the harpies of the Treasury”; and then again it was said, with equal point, that they could not be trusted to “the bloodhounds of the War.” These were exaggerations of opposite opinions; but they serve to disclose the irreconcilable discord on the subject.

If the freedmen could have been provided for without reference to the lands, the question would have been relieved from much of its embarrassment. But it was the conviction of the Committee, in which they were sustained by all most familiar with the matter, that the care of the freedmen and the care of the abandoned lands ought to be in the same hands, and that they could not be separated without exposing the freedmen to the mischiefs of two conflicting jurisdictions. But the War Office was not adapted to manage the lands, as many insisted that the Treasury was not adapted to manage the freedmen.

There was another consideration not without influence. It was felt that each of these great departments of the Government was already so severely burdened, so weighed down with manifold duties, that it was hardly in condition to assume a new trust, so grave and onerous as that proposed.